(Follow-up) The Failed Book of Athenian Truth, The Successful Book of Jerusalem Deceit.

—Dr. Dolittle, you’re an ignorant anti-semite!!—

Actually I’m not anti-anything (and certainly not anti-gene pool, just the opposite) other than theft and deceit, and I am probably the most knowledgeable person working today on the subject of Truth, and its consequences in Ethics, Morality, and Politics. Which I’m happy to demonstrate in any debate with anyone living at any time. And I probably know the very few people capable of debating me.

Either statements are true, statements are false or statements are undecidable. Either you can attack the arguments that I put forward or you cant. No name calling will alter the truth or falsity of the statements. All it demonstrates is that you’re either ignorant or dishonest.

The fact of the matter is that westerners discovered quite by accident, the technology of truth and it resulted in reason, science, medicine, technology and nearly all significant advancements made by mankind.

The fact of the matter is that for some reason, probably necessity, the hebrews created very useful means of deception of simple people who wished for the world to be other than it is. Their first great lie was scriptural monotheism. Their second great lies were pseudoscience.

The New England neo-puritans (my people, my ancestors, since my ancestors were norman and then puritans in the plymouth and new haven colonies,) evolved into the anti-slavery movement as a way of preparing the way for women’s suffrage. This is all well documented history. Sorry. The combination of the radical changes of the industrial revolution, the anglo, french, german, and jewish enlightenment failures, and the failure of western governments to successfully adapt rule of law and political processes that provide a means of constructing commons, could not adapt.

While a good number of our greatest minds understood that a problem was in progress they failed at solving it. Poincaré, Russell, Mises, Hayek, Popper, Bridgman, Brouwer, all failed to solve the problem of the social sciences. And because they failed, the 20th century will be remembered both as a rapid economic expansion, and (as Hayek warned it would be) a century of mysticism. Or, given their lack of understanding of the reason for the success of the discipline of science, ‘the century of pseudoscience.’.

These are just facts. Deal with reality. We don’t need more lies. We’ve destroyed western civilization with those lies.


I Don’t Do Anti-Semitism. I do Truth and Rule of Law

Again. Please do not go all anti jewish on me. I dont do racism. it’s tedious and useless. I know how the germans failed. i know how the french failed. I know how we anglos failed. I don’t think the jews of the 19th and 20th centuries knew what they were doing any more than the Germans, French and Anglos knew what they were doing. We all work with the frames of reference we get from our cultures.

I want to know how to accomplish the elimination of lying in the social sciences, and law, what we accomplished with the elimination of mysticism and the elimination of rationalism.

To do that I must understand the technique. Did Plato know what he was doing? I am not sure. Did Socrates? I am not sure Did Aristotle = I think he did. Did Smith and Hume? I think they did. Did Jefferson, yes. Did Marx, I don’t think so. Did Adorno and crew? I have no idea but according to him, not really. Did Rand and Rothbard – rand maybe, rothbard I don’t think so.

The technique of the talmud is quite simple: duplicity. The question is, why does it work so well?


Tucker as a Rationalist In The Age of Science

Note: I’m not anti-Tucker. I see him as a very good man with good intentions but part of a prior generation’s thinking whose time has long passed, and methods have long failed. But I have no reason to believe that he is anything other than a good man with good intentions. I like him quite a bit and always have.

—“The media is a business meaning that they can’t coerce you, tax you, bomb you, deport you, kill you. All they can do is write articles and make shows that sell advertising. And you are willing to celebrate a would-be dictator because he foils some reporters???”—Jeffrey A. Tucker

(a) Regarding the media, are you rationalizing what the media can do, or are you relying upon empirical evidence of what the media can do? Because the evidence is that they create opinion in sufficient voters to do precisely what you say they cannot.

(b) I have a hard time seeing the difference between the current president and a trump presidency or any other presidency in the absence of rule of law. And given the evidence of (a), its logical to prefer a president who will continue to undermine (a).

Liberty is produced by rule of law(universal application) demanding the total prohibition on parasitism(imposition of costs) in the private (morality) and public (liberty) spheres of action, constructed by individual enforcement of norms, individual enforcement of law under universal standing, organized enforcement of the law under an independent judiciary, and organized prevention of usurpation of that law by the militia.

And liberty is (again, empirically not just rationally) a preference of and only of a limited number of individuals in limited family structures, with limited cultural traditions, with limited legal traditions. All others systematically seek to undermine it in every polity on earth.

Man was not kept down and oppressed by his betters. Man was incrementally civilized by his betters, much against his will. He was forced to abandon murder, violence, theft, fraud, fraud by asymmetry, fraud by indirection, fraud by obscurantism, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war, and conquest.

By being forced to abandon all unproductive and parasitic actions, the only venue left for man was the burden of participation in the market through productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange free of imposition of cost by externality.

But the arts of production are difficult, and the arts of lying, defrauding, cheating, stealing, blackmailing, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy are much easier.

Liberty requires meritocracy and meritocracy is not a matter of belief it is a mater of ability.

Genes matter. Open immigration is empirically destructive. While we can estimate the decline in anglo intelligence since 1850, we can measure the decline in French intelligence due to immigration just since 1950. The Flynn effect can be reversed through degradation of the gene pool.

It is the gene pool that establishes the degree of liberty, the degree of truth telling, the degree of productivity, the norms and traditions of a polity.

It is a romantic amateurism to pursue liberty as a philosophical choice – a religion or cult – versus an empirical problem to be solved.

The age of rationalization has ended just as the age of mysticism ended. The current era is one of science: requiring both internal consistency(logical and rational) and external correspondence(empirical) as well as existentially possible (operationally articulable) and morality (voluntary transfers) bounded by full accounting (of all costs to all capital) and parsimony (defined limits of falsification).

Time for the adult version of liberty: Aristocratic(meritocratic) Egalitarian(meritocratic) Eugenic(meritocratic) Nomocracy(rule of law) assisted by a market for the production of commons using the exception of legal dissent, rather than the requirement of universal assent by majority rule.

Trump is a tool of progress. That is all. Liberty requires progress. Moreover it requires we repress the rates of reproduction of the underclasses who will not and cannot participate in liberty.


Intertemporal Labor

(Worth Repeating)

The Intertemporal Division of Reproductive Labor



Nomocracy: Rule Of Law and Market Government are the Only Alternative

Markets in everything: A Market for Goods and Services(“Capitalism”), A Market for Commons (“Government”), A Market for Dispute Resolution (“Rule” – and independent judiciary under the one law of property).

The care-taking of the unable and the requirement of self support for reproduction. Imposing costs upon others is antithetical to civilization – eradication of it is the purpose of civilization. While insurance against the vicissitudes of nature is necessary for risk, the guarantee of dependence is mere theft by intention not accident.

Communism Fails (authority). Democratic Socialism Fails(democracy). Libertinism Fails(individualism).

The only solution is MARKET GOVERNMENT. And market governance requires rule of law.


Example of Translating Into Propertarianism

You know, normally I wouldn’t respond, but you’re a moral person and you’re trying, so I’m going to restate what you say scientifically. Watch what happens.

—“The first truth that needs to be asserted is that nature is a product of an action, not an action in and of itself. The second truth, is that nature has a tendency to move from order to chaos, not chaos to order.”—

Translates to:

Man creates his personal, intellectual, social, political and economic method of cooperation, which we observe in the form of patterns of behavior, reproduction, norms, production, laws, institutions by the cumulative influence of his actions. We will call set of patterns this that produce cooperation a ‘social order’. Social orders have a tendency to evolve through experimentation, rent-seeking, and shocks until the patterns fail to assist in cooperation, and instead hinder cooperation, resulting in desires and therefore demand for restructuring these patterns of behavior using different principles, technologies, and institutions of cooperation.

You are mixing religious, moral, and semi-scientific terminology and phrasing. Thankfully I”m able to disassemble it.

—“We can make the same conclusions regarding morality and ethics.”—

Those institutions of cooperation that we name “ethics” for interpersonal actions, and “morality” for the external consequences of our actions, also follow the same pattern of evolution until they no longer assist in cooperation, but hinder cooperation.

—“Modern science has affirmed the counter,”—

(I am afraid I cannot translate this except as ‘modern science has asserted otherwise’?)

—“[science] has lead to fallacious conclusions about nearly every other subject that it touches.”—

Unfortunately, due to the introduction of pseudoscience in the social sciences by Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Keynes, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand and Rothbard, as well as all the european and american postmodernists including feminists, and its subsequent adoption in the media, in advertising, in academy, and in the state bureaucracy, and in the primary and secondary school system, and in the collective bargaining groups, pseudoscientific conclusions spread through propaganda have indoctrinated large portions of the electorate, particularly women and the lower classes, into this false pseudoscientific set of ethical and moral conclusions.

—“Our core philosophical assumptions shape the way we view the world.”—

The value judgements that we use to decide between and act upon a multitude of possible actions are constructed from instinctual bias, experience with others, observation, norms, traditions, rituals, myths, legends, education, and formal institutions.

—“I believe these first two truths to be instinctually known rather than empirically proven.”—

I testify that these statements can be known by intuition and experience, not by pseudoscientific argumentation. In matters of social science, we can only determine what works successfully or unsuccessfully, we cannot know that any hypothesis will be successful or unsuccessful by ratio-scientific analysis.

(Note: one does not ‘prove’ anything empirically. One only eliminates alternative hypothesis and imaginary and biased, and false content from one’s statements and theories. When one constructs a proof in logic or mathematics or operationalism, one states only that this construction is possible, not that it is true. It is only true that one may claim it is possible. )

–“It then becomes a matter of intellectual honesty by affirming what we already know to be true.’—

(Note: This is total nonsense, sorry. Just because pseudoscience cannot tell us what is true, and just because science can only tell us in the social sciences what is false, that does not mean our intuitions tell us what is true, because we cannot easily separate immoral and unethical norms traditions and teachings from moral and ethical norms and teachings. Otherwise people world wide would intuit ethical and moral action differently. While it is true that our senses tell us what is ethical – we evolved them over time – they can almost never tell us what is moral, and rarely tell us of externalities. Or it would have been possible to develop social science to defeat social pseudoscience before the 21st century.)

The rest of the post continues to elaborate on this fallacy, so there is nothing else to comment upon.

Science has told us what constitutes ethics and morality. Science has told us what our intutions failed to. All of ethics and morality is composed of an accounting of cooperative assistance and cooperative costs, and that is all it is. All else is just ritualistic language.


Natural Rights As

Natural “rights” are those legal rights of appeal for defense or restitution with which productive men must warranty they insure one another in order to resist the natural ‘wrongs’ that man demonstrates when unproductive.

Rights are those actions we insure one another against by collective action when they are violated. But the means of violation is always the same: the imposition of costs upon others, rather than engaging in productive activities.

This lack of including the requirement for productivity, which was obvious to men of property, was an obvious requirement of nature, and therefore a natural law not needing insurance, but one insured by nature herself. An unproductive man in the company of productive men need not be judged by men unless he imposes a cost upon them. His failure of productivity is a judgement passed against him by nature.

Women circumvented this principle and with it destroyed aristocratic, egalitarian, western civilization.

The Russians and Chinese bought the Great Lie of Communism. Americans bought the Great Lie of Neo Puritanism. These were the great lies.

The answer was very simple: just keep on with what we were doing and create new houses for women and the working classes, and preserve our ancient monarchies, and our ancient rule of law.

Napoleon was the first catastrophe. He started the ball rolling. He was the first plunderer of Europe since the Muslims Sacked Rome. And he broke our relative peace.


Libertarians Cannot Gain The Presidency


Libertarian party is dead. Current emerging strategy is that the democratic party is too dependent upon marginal groups and women and that the middle class and working class can be brought into the republican party. There is no room for a libertarian (entrepreneurial party) until we eliminate the FPTP problem in the constitution. Pending a civil war there will be no addition or subtraction of parties, only a DOMINANT PARTY and an OPPOSITION PARTY. The primary value of third parties is to threaten dominant and opposition parties if they fail to accommodate groups that early candidates successfully enfranchise. Ron Paul failed and he failed for good reasons: foreign policy, and open borders. Rand Paul fares no better.

At present democratic party = third worlders and single women, republican party=whites. In other words democrat=non-nuclear family, and republican=nuclear family.


I thought we left gossiping, rallying, and shaming to the postmoderns. smile emoticon Non arguments are for leftists and teenage girls.

If you want comment on your policy that’s something I support. The question isn’t whether your libertarian policy, or anyone else’s is superior to social democratic policy. Its whether it is possible for a third party under FPTP to do other than disempower either the dominant or opposition party.

The only possibility is to rase enough interest in one or two key policy improvements that cannot be appropriated and to force their appropriation by one of the major parties, or to force them to lose an election because of it.

Taxes aren’t even on radar. Immigration is. But then, I’m not paid to be your advisor. And, obviously whomever your paying isn’t really up to the job. Or you would get airplay.

—“The dominant party does not want to get more than 51% of the vote. If they get a higher percentage, they are leaving rents on the table or they are failing to push their agenda(s) as fast or as hard as they could.

The opposition wants to stay in the game and get as much of the remainder (49%) as possible in the hopes that the dominant party will overplayed their hand and leave an election up for grabs, which they sometimes do. But in order to maximize their chances, they have to hew as close as possible to the positions of the dominant party. If there is any ideological gap between them, voters who fall into the gap will be split between the two dominant parties, tending to go to the closer one. In order to capture the maximum number, they must hew close.

A third party can make the opposition more effective and strident by forcing it to trade off on both margins, rather than just on one, so long as opposition + third together can maintain a blocking proportion of the Senate, (40%.)”—Eli Harman

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.


It’s Not A Fallacy, It’s A Deceit

(First Draft)

Working through Rallying and Shaming (which are threats of non-cooperation), through the techniques used against the west, if not against all humans.

I come up with this hierarchy as a first draft.

1) Gossiping, Shaming, Rallying (Threatening with non-cooperation)
2) Loading, Framing, Overloading (Saturation)
3) Distraction, Half-Truth/Suggestion, Big Lie (Substitution overloading)
4) Magic, Monotheism, Pseudoscience (loaded and framed big lie)
5) Interpersonal, Square/Pulpit/Podium, Media (overloaded big lie)
6) State, Academy and School, Entertainment and Media

All of which are attacks on the subconscious to force the application of pathological altruism, rather than reason and skepticism.


Retaliation Is The Test of Lying, Not Intent

Retaliation is the test of whether you’ve stated a white vs grey or black lie. If someone will retaliate, or feel the need to retaliate, or be negatively disposed to you for your lie, then it’s not to be done. If the person will thank you for it, then it should be. If I am ever again in an ambulance, please tell me I will be fine because I need it. I will thank you for it.

Paternal Lying: I lie to children – we all do to some degree – because they can’t understand the truth at times. I notice that I ‘lie’ pretty often by giving people partial information just so that I don’t have to give them a full explanation – for the simple purpose of saving time, energy, and patience. I notice that if people are treating me dishonestly, or stupidly, i let them believe what they want, rather than correct them or challenge them – to save effort and stress. When I was young in business during the Yuppie era I engaged in misdirection. When I negotiate I engage in misdirection to gain access to information.

But in general I try to avoid immoral OUTCOMES, and to produce moral outcomes. This is a form of paternalism that is in fact, dishonest. Yet I am not sure it is immoral. I have very few things I regret in life and many of them are before I made a rather dramatic change in my own outlook and decided to invest in teaching people instead of outwitting them. I have a few regrets in business not because I was dishonest, but because I was simply wrong and it appeared I was dishonest. Usually I do the opposite: hold the moral high ground at all costs, even to my detriment. But that does not prevent one from engaging in outcome ethics rather than rule or virtue ethics. Hence, paternal lying: when there exists and asymmetry of understanding, knowledge and ability, such that higher moral purpose is preserved by use of knowledge than by adherence to virtue or deontological rules.

The anglo saxon version of the ancient wisdom – the silver rule: “do not unto others that what you would not want done unto you” is, it turns out, the epistemology of imposed costs.

(Interesting. first draft. I haven’t worked through that idea before.)